(first posted 8/30/2012) The nationality of vehicles can be hard to discern these days, what with manufacturer collaboration, world cars, overseas production and remote design studios. However, the blurring of automotive identities is not a recent phenomenon, as we will see in this look at the Renault GTA. The GTA was the high performance version of the North American-market Renault Alliance, itself a derivative of the Renault 9 and 11, that was built and sold by AMC. While some consider the Alliance a French car, it wasn’t built for the French market. On the other hand, I can’t imagine a die hard bow-tie, Mopar or blue oval man embracing it as American. In any case, all Alliances were officially classified as domestics whose contents were at least 70% locally-produced.
Ask a European what a Renault GTA is, and they’d probably point you toward an Alpine GTA like the one above.
Before we dig into the GTA story, here’s a bit of background: The (perhaps unimaginatively named) Alliance was the product of an alliance between AMC and Renault. At the time, AMC’s model lineup was, to put it kindly, rather dated and conservative. Yes, Jeep was doing well, and AMC did offer a couple of 4WD passenger cars, but they had nothing really fuel-efficient. AMC desperately needed a contemporary small car to sell. At the same time, Renault was looking to expand its presence in what they considered the largely untapped American market. The few LeCars being sold weren’t cutting it, and the Fuego was a pleasant but expensive coupe relegated to a niche role. The current USD-to-Franc exchange rate made importing French-built cars a losing proposition. And thus it was that from Kenosha, Wisconsin emerged the AMC-built Renault Alliance.
Aimed at the MPG-conscious lower end of the market, the Alliance was a minor hit. On the strength of mostly favorable reviews and a $5,995 base price, AMC moved 142,000 copies in 1983. What’s more, the new Alliance made the Car & Driver 10-Best list and was also named Motor Trend’s Car of the Year. Buyers were attracted to its small-on-the- outside, big-and-comfortable-on-the-inside design. If today we wonder why anyone would have bought an Alliance, well, just consider its competition. The Chevette was no-frills basic and crude. The Omni couldn’t match its fuel economy, The Corolla was solid, but stuck with an outdated rear-drive layout. The Civic was highly rated and priced to match. Besides, none could approach the Alliance’s passenger comfort.
The 1983 AMC-Renault lineup must have been among the most varied ever sold beneath a single banner.
The 1984 Alliance lineup included new convertible and three- and five-door Encore hatchback models. Total sales topped 208,000 that year, but things quickly went downhill as competitors raised their game and stabilizing fuel prices softened the small car market. A mere 35,000 Alliances were sold in 1987.
Today, it’s quite rare to run across a survivor. In fact, the only Alliance I’ve seen recently is this one, which I found in a local junkyard. It seemed basically solid and complete, but looked dirty and unloved. I imagine it had been scrapped due to the combination of a minor mechanical issue and the owner’s lack of desire to track down the needed parts. By the way, you can tell this is Southern Alberta–in this case, the PGA vanity plate refers to an association for professional potato growers, not professional golfers.
As you can see, AMC converted some Alliance four-doors into limousines as a publicity stunt.
The Renault GTA, introduced in 1987, offered performance that matched the brand’s renowned interior comfort.
Regular Alliances offered a choice of 1.4-liter, 64-hp OHV and 1.7-liter, 77-hp OHC four-cylinder engines; however, the GTA was blessed with a beefier 2.0-liter, 90-hp OHC power plant whose long-stroke design produced plenty of useable torque. Mated to the mandatory close-ratio five-speed transmission, it got the GTA from 0-60 in a respectable-for the-time 10.2-seconds.
In this promotional video, Renault claimed better performance than the Corolla GTS, Honda CRX and Volkswagen GTi. Maybe the GTS driver left his parking brake on (or granny-shifted), since it finished faster in contemporary road tests.
In addition to a hotter engine, the GTA received upgrades to its suspension and brakes, body cladding and Michelin performance tires mounted on 15-inch alloy rims. Of course, no late-80s car with a performance package was complete without a small, trunk-mounted wing, so the GTA got one. The GTA was available only as a two-door sedan or convertible painted Sebring Red, Olympic White, Classic Black or Metallic Sterling. Here is a rather lovely Darth-Vader- on-a-budget black GTA with red accents–in my opinion the best color, although the convertible does look sharp in white.
Run-of-the-mill Alliances were known for having a nice interior, but the GTA kicks things up a bit with exclusive sport seats and a steering wheel from the Renault 5 Turbo.
As promising as it looked on paper, the GTA was not a sales success, and thus a rare sight nowadays. Total GTA sales comprised 5,515 coupes and only 1,029 convertibles. Certainly, a high asking price didn’t help: The base model coupe went for $9,000 before the addition of common options like A/C. Complicating matters was the buyout of AMC by Chrysler, which bounced both the Alliance and GTA after 1987.
In an era of European and Japanese hot hatches, this GTA remains a bit of an oddity, with its sedan body and fuzzy national identity. This particular example, in outstanding condition, looks like it just rolled right out the 80s. So to the owner, a big “Bravo” — or perhaps just a simple “Well done”.
I now really want to have a drive in that black coupe. At the start of the post I’d never have thought that possible. I’m becoming more and more of a sucker for lean ’80s stuff.
I have a 87 Renault gta 2.0 litre 5 speed manual convertible. With 103000 km. I love it. It turns heads
I am thinking of buying an ’87 GTA convertible. What was your experience? What should I know about this model? Strong points? Weak points? Parts availability? Thanks.
Strong points – looks with top down, handling, acceleration good for the era, reasonably gas mileage
Weak points – top up boxiness, cheaper plastics, seat cloth fades with age, parts availability, wheel bearings and motor mounts are consumables
I bought a black gta in 1987. I friggen loved it. Except for the front wheel bearings and front motor mounts. I hammered on this car for 8 years before the clutch finally gave in. I really miss it. I think with all the options i ordered, i paid 13k new.
I still have the original sales booklet
I still have my 87 GTA…120kms…where the heck can you get parts & service?
what do you need ihave parts cars but have the convertibles
I live in southern ontario and I need to know the nearest location I can get the car serviced.
well they do tune ups in Winnipeg there are still a few old mechanics here
How about a passenger side window regulator? I have a 1987 GTA convertible. BTW, will the regulator from a 1987 GTA coupe fit a 1987 GTA convertible?
I need a window regulator for the drivers side door and the head light switch for a 1987 alliance convertible 1.7 DL.
mrvansciman@aol.com
I had an ’83 Alliance MT, the Motor Trend Car of the Year edition. It was a seriously comfortable car – as long as you were in the front seat. The back seat was a torture chamber, largely due to insufficient leg room.
The 1.4 liter engine in my Alliance, even mated to the 5-speed transmission, brought pitiful acceleration. I could get that car past 80 on the highway — it just took forever to get there. Passing on a two-lane highway was usually out of the question. The 10-ish second times to 60 mph the GTA brought would have been very welcome.
However, my Alliance routinely got 40 mpg on the highway, and 35 in town. That was hard to beat.
Torture chamber or not, I seem to recall that rear seat passengers benefitted from the unusual, center-track mounted front seats, which freed up the sides for the rear passengers’ feet. And for some reason I also remember these being a feature of a Jeep model (maybe the Cherokee?) at some point.
Loved the commercials for these at the time. It showed a canyon between American buyers and European sedans, which closed up when the Alliance appeared.
Yes, the feet had room under the seat, which was good. But tall back-seat passengers always had to sit with legs splayed uncomfortably wide around the front seat back. Two tall passengers in the back, the left knee of one and the right knee of the other fought for supremacy in the middle.
Yes, they put Renault front seats in various Jeep models back then.
I had an ’86 base model, 1.4 and 4 speed. I recall 38 mpg was the norm upon fill-up. Very comfortable seats. Amazing visibility in all directions. Nice ride until I got hoodwinked by Sears into buying new shocks. Fun to drive, very precise & fast manual steering. Very slow. At about 65,000 miles, began hearing odd sounds from the engine bay, decided I’d had enough of the penalty box life and bought an Accord.
The smaller parking light is what did me in, I thought all of these had 4 sealed beams like the regular ones did.
They had four standard lights, then in 86 (or 85?) a smaller size light, I think only the middle ones were the high beams. The 87s all had only two lights.
Speaking of Renault, anyone seen a running Le Car lately?
I’ve seen exactly one in the last decade.
One of the owners of the garage I use has had an immaculate white Le Car for several years, although I don’t think it’s his daily driver.
Yeah, mine, i had two, a 1980 TS and a 1984 TX. Most reliable cars I`ve owned behind my 2dr. 1999 Jeep Cherokee with a notable exception, starter motors that are next to the exhaust manifold, no biggie, just push start it and get home.
The YouTube vlogger ‘Cold War Motors’ has restored a Le Car & it’s a daily driver for him.
The white convertible is a sweet little car. If the base coupe was $ 9,000, the convertible had to be a couple thousand or so more. $ 11K or more for a little car like that in 1987 would be a hard sell. I recall in a J.C. Penney store, a raffle for a red convertible. Boy, that car looked tiny.
I wonder what the actual length of the car is. My 85 Lebaron conv (at 179.6″) seems a bit bigger, but in parking lots, it also looks tiny compared to todays’ offerings. Front interior room is excellent. I’ve sat in the back seat, if the driver had the seat up, it would be comfortable back there.
Back then, I would not have even considered a little car. Now, they’ve really grown on me.
The Renault 9 and 11 were one of those cars that had a reputation in Europe and South America as being bulletproofly reliable. Growing up in the states, this was hard to reconcile, as the Alliance and Encore were well known for being less than good.
I never could get to the bottom of this- was it because of assembly quality, the addition of US smog controls on engines not designed for them, or perhaps just because they aimed at the lowest end of the market and sold on the ‘we finance anyone’ promise, and thus weren’t serviced?
I rather think it was probably the latter, as this is the fate that befalls most ‘also ran’ imports. Similarly, the Yugo wasn’t a terrible car and in the hands of an enthusiast owner- many were purchased by Italian car enthusiasts who wished they could get still get a Fiat, could be very reliable.
I do remember riding in a friend’s mother’s car as a kid. These were the type of cars that upper middle class parents would buy as the school run car because you could get a very luxurious top spec model that was still easy to drive and park. I think the interior was very quirky for the era, and it seemed much nicer inside than my mom’s Corolla.
They were everywhere in the 80s, but by the time I was in high school, they were all gone. Rust didn’t seem to be the issue with these that it was on other cars, certainly I never saw rusty ones like I did Civics of the same era. I think they used some unconventional engieering (meaning PITA to repair) and as such were junked whenever a seemingly minor repair required removing the engine.
As a side note, the 1.4 engine had its start in the 4cv and also powered the Dauphine. By the 80s, however, it was very reliable and has a great reputation in the baby Volvo 340.
Somewhere I have an Austrian auto magazine from the early ’80s which featured a long term test of a Renault 9. At the end of the test period, which IIIRC was 50,000 kilometers, they completely disassembled the car. Not only was it the least reliable car they’d ever tested, they found that a shocking number of its mechanical components were near or past their wear limits. They rated it the worst car ever tested, and that was in the Austrian market that was open to Iron Curtain crud. I’m not sure where you heard the 9 was considered bulletproof in Europe. They were pretty much ahead of us in noticing that the cars were disposable.
My Alliance absolutely started to fall apart at 75,000 miles. Engine woes became common. By 85,000 miles, the thing did not start reliably most days. If my experience was typical, it’s no wonder these all disappeared from the roads.
neighbor had a well optioned 4 door early in the model run. Keep in mind the motoring competition at the time – we had an 82 cavalier, other side neighbor a Fox based ford fairmount and (awesome but spartan) ford fiesta.
the alliance was pure luxury, french soft ride, great reclining seats, great stereo. Low power was the norm, and not noticeably worse than the other cars I was exposed to. I recall the alliance was pretty durable too, and the guy lamented when it went away. Of course I would expect that he migrated to toyotas or hondas in the late 80s, along with my family.
I am 6’5″ tall and almost hurt myself trying to drive a coworkers Alliance sedan. I never thought much about them after that. I seem to remember hearing that they were a service department’s nightmare….
Never really wanted them while they were here and after thinking about them I still don’t. What is interesting though is the “la casita” type trailer in the top picture. Rather put it behind my S-10 than a Renault.
That is a Canadian made Boler trailer – they are quite interesting all by themselves. http://bolerama.org/Bolerama/Welcome.html
Thanks David. That was interesting. Not far below Dallas is a place with a batch of “La Casita” fiberglass trailers. Think they are made there, not just sold. Thought when I first saw them maybe 20 years ago that they were fairly original. No chance. Someone once commented that they make it to the PNW regularly. We do like to travel.
Nice article, makes me rethink a car I had ignorantly dismissed as an irredeemable crapcan.
I do have a serious weak spot for the Eagle Premier and Dodge Monaco, though. It must be at least 10 year since I saw one of those on the street.
Yes, I always thought the Premier/Monaco was a particularly good looking car in its understated way.
I had one just like that as a rental for a couple weeks after my Jetta was totaled by my girlfriend while the driver of the other car was considered at fault. I liked the primary controls being on wings that tilted with the steering column, the floating ride, and the uncharacteristically non-thrashy V6. I thought it looked like a generic Brand-X version of an Audi 5000s though.
I thought they were ugly, and still do. Way too boxy, with bland, generic styling and too much front overhang. To each his own, I guess.
Altough we never owned one, I grew up in Kenosha and these cars do bring back memories of their time. I always thought the four door looked nice. One thing I do remember is that over the course of their run (82-87) they never really changed too much, save for the GTA package.
That “Lakefront Plant”, on beautiful Lake Michigan in downtown Kenosha, was demolished in ’89 or ’90, I believe. It is now a series of townhouses and apartment buildings. In an effort to “rebuild” downtown Kenosha, there has been much gentrification, but to no real avail unfortuantely. The cars were also assembled/completed at the 52nd street plant which still stands, although it is currently undergoing a decision as to its fate. It’s quite sad to see it today as it is not used at all. When I remember the days when Hornets, Gremlins, Pacers, and Matadors would stream out of it.
Here’s a shot of the 52nd street facility from awhile back, looking east on 52nd street at 30th avenue:
…and here’s what the area once occupied by the Lakefront Plant looks like today:
Ooh! Nice ’79 Catalina in the foreground. All the ’77-’79 full-size Pontiacs seem to have disappeared. I love ’em, though!
The 25th-30th Ave, 52nd-60th St facility that was AMC Main and was the oldest auto factory in continuous use when it was closed, is now gone. A vacant brownfield. The lakefront plant had been the home of Simmons (bedding) Co. (founded in Kenosha) until around 1959 when AMC took it over.
The 1983 Renault Alliance was Motor Trend’s Car of the Year? No kidding, and it seemed like every ’83 made came with a large decal in the rear window procaliming this fact. And surprisingly no one removed the decal, ever, maybe it was embedded in the glass. I’m sure the honor made owners feel better about their purchase but that decal became a cruel joke (or maybe a taunt) 3-4 years later when these things starting falling apart as they did in the DC area when I was there – hey, there’s another broken down Renault Alliance, Motor Trend’s Car of the Year!
Although I remember the Appliance, I do not remember the GTA. I am in David42’s club, and would at least drive one if I were transported back to 1987. Owning an 85 GTi at the time, I would have been quite the authority when comparing the two.
One of my wife’s cousins drove an Alliance – and drove it for a long, long time. I hear a lot of people tell how awful these were, but hers stayed on the road for years and years.
“Total sales topped 208,000 that year, but things quickly went downhill as competitors raised their game and stabilizing fuel prices softened the small car market. A mere 35,000 Alliances were sold in 1987.”
As a few other posters have alluded to, I think there was more to it than tougher competition and falling gas prices; it also seemed like the Alliance/Encore developed a reputation over time as a car to avoid. I don’t know if people felt they were of poor quality, or if they were a pain to service, or if there was a lack of confidence in the future of AMC/Renault, or what.
I remember having a conversation with a guy I knew in 1988 who was stunned to hear that they were no longer being made (to be fair, the Chrysler takeover killed them off, but they were on their way out to begin with, as illustrated by the above sales figure for 1987). His sister had bought one a couple of years earlier and had apparently had good luck with hers. At the time she bought it, they had been pretty popular.
These were really strong sellers in my Virginia neighborhood during their first two years on the market. After that, everyone knew someone that was miserable about their Renault. That’s what killed sales. It isn’t like sales of Tercels, Civics, GLCs, or Corollas collapsed during the same period. The Alliance/Encore also had one of the most infamous recall campaigns.
1983-1987 Renault Alliance Recalls
Recall Date: 1992-04-10
Components: VISIBILITY:DEFROSTER/DEFOGGER SYSTEM:WINDSHIELD…
Cars Affected: 540,000
Summary:
THE END CAP CONNECTING THE HEAT EXCHANGER’S CORE TO THE ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM COULD RUPTURE AND ALLOW HOT COOLANT TO ESCAPE INTO THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT.
Consequences:
THE COOLANT ESCAPING INTO THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT COULDCONTACT THE DRIVER’S FEET AND INJURE THE DRIVER. ALSO, STEAM FROM THE HEATEDLIQUID WILL CLOUD ON THE WINDOW SURFACES AND IMPAIR THE DRIVER’S VISION ANDCOULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Remedy:
REPLACE THE HEATER CORE WITH A CORE OF DIFFERENT DESIGN WHICH WILL NOT RUPTURE AND LEAK IN THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT.
Recall Date: 1988-05-31
Components: VISIBILITY:DEFROSTER/DEFOGGER SYSTEM:WINDSHIELD…
Cars Affected: 240,000
Summary:
COOLING SYSTEM PRESSURES DURING OVERHEATED ENGINE OPERATION MAY EXCEED THE STRENGTH CAPABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPONENTS DUE TO INADEQUATE VENTING CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM PRESSURE CAP.
Consequences:
THE BUILDUP OF PRESSURE MAY CAUSE HEATER CORE TO RUPTUREAND DISCHARGE HOT COOLANT AND STEAM IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE DRIVERS LEGS.
Remedy:
REPLACE ALL COOLANT SYSTEM PRESSURE CAPS WITH ONE HAVING ADEQUATE VENTING CAPACITY.
.
Chrysler had to seek out every one of these cars that hadn’t been crushed and replace the heater core. Many of them were in scrapyards by then, and Chrysler had to place a new heater core and other components on the driver seat with direction to replace everything should the car ever be returned to the road.
This bad heater core is #1 of many reasons these were awful cars in the long run. Never mind the ‘good handling’ and ‘luxury’ [really ?] interiors.
I knew people who bought new Alliances. They were very happy, at first.
Something about that first photo makes me think ‘junior Maserati Biturbo/Shamal’ – I think it’s the rear side window/rear flanks area.
Had never heard of one of these before this site. The GTA is not a bad-looking little thing.
I owned two GTAs, first a sedan and then a convertible too (pictured together below). Be it noted that despite the obvious 9/Alliance lineage, the car is not an “Alliance GTA” as the writeup implies; Renault considered it a distinct model and the Alliance name appeared nowhere on the car or in other documentation.
More important, though power was nothing special, the car was hailed in contemporary tests as perhaps the best-handling front-wheel-drive car that had been produced to date. With the stiffer sedan, I used to enjoy flicking the car around typical 90-degree turns around town without slowing from the 30 mph speed limit, and had a rude surprise the first time I tried to do the same in a borrowed Civic.
Plenty has been said about the cars’ fragile parts, lackluster assembly, and problematical dealer support elsewhere, of course. The Alliance and GTA convertibles had a reputation for eating window regulators like no other car, and mine was no exception. The Franco-American lineage also led to oddities such as a driver’s having to use one key for the French-made door lock and another for the American-made ignition lock (I may have this the wrong way around ten years after the fact, but you get the idea).
This is what I love about this place. However rare or odd a car may be, almost without fail we will hear from somebody who actually owned one (or more) and give the rest of us a firsthand glimpse of what it was actually like. After your description of the handling, I really want to drive one now.
At the moment I can’t lay my hands on my file full of old test reports — the C&D writer memorably said “someone in charge obviously said this sucker’s gonna handle” — but I did find this online (http://articles.mcall.com/1986-12-20/news/2545925_1_european-renault-performance-cars-sporty):
“The four-wheel independent suspension system – gas-charged MacPherson struts and shocks up front and torsion bars in the rear, large front and rear stabilizer bars and increased-rate springs – has been retuned for handling. Driving the GTA shouldn’t present any problems to anyone but it is much more responsive than the average Alliance. The rack-and-pinion steering system is tight and it doesn’t take much wheel movement to turn the GTA. The test car was particularly impressive on tortuous back roads. It just hung in there like a sports car under the most trying conditions.”
There is a period comparison test available from Popular Science here – http://books.google.ca/books?id=3AAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=renault+gta&source=bl&ots=lZlqQBM4Ad&sig=qAo5X2pnP-T70wGU6qjFXkCKuyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b7M_ULbCFMX2qQGNsYGAAw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=renault%20gta&f=false
Even the regular Alliance had pretty tight steering, and a very small turning radius. It was frankly the best part of driving the regular Alliance.
What I like is the civility, usually you get people calling out the car being discussed as a POS when they haven’t driven one or even seen one.
I too owned a brand new GTA back in late ’86 and I put 190K on it with no mechanical issues whatsoever except that it ate wheel bearings and motor mounts. The stock Alliance wheel bearings couldn’t handle the wide (for the time) Michelin Sport XGT VR50 tires and the torque was a bit much for the Renault motor mounts. They were basically rubber glued to two pieces of metal, which made for a smooth ride but gave up the ghost every 40K or so.
In the context of the ’80s, these were great cars: virtually bulletproof, precise and predictable handling that couldn’t be beat and faster than you think. I could blow away most 5.0L cars of the time (except the Mustang) and GTI had to increase their engine size because the ’87 was not even close to as fast.
The perceived reliability problems of AMC were not due to the car, at least in my case. If you did just routine maintenance on the GTA, the car would go forever. The problem is that most people who bought a cheapo car like the Alliance did not do routine maintenance and the dealer mechanics knew little about them. Most of them died when the timing belt broke after not being replaced at 100K. If you let it overheat, the aluminum head would warp and you had problems. The heater core recall gets cited as an example of how the car was bad, but it was all due to the car not getting a vented cap when new and the recall involved replacing the cap. Big deal.
BTW, I got rid of my GTA in 1995 but always missed it, so I bought a white convertible a few years back to fix up.
The infamous Alliance recall required replacement of the heater core.
The Alliance earned a bad rep within two years, not from old unmaintained cars.
Our title is correct; the subtitle is a play on words. And while I appreciate the fact that the GTA was semantically not an Alliance, its relationship to it was all-too obvious. I suspect that by the time the GTA arrived, maybe AMC was trying a bit too hard to separate it from the Alliance’s falling star?
“maybe AMC was trying a bit too hard to separate it from the Alliance’s falling star” — touche!
Hi Johnny, good morning!!
Do u still have the GTA? I need a big favor…
I would like to have a very good picture from your GTA motor valves cover where actually appears the little red frame or plate that indicates “2.0 L”…
Thnks in advance!!
Have a great week!
…anyone else can please share a decent picture? I’ll appreciate it!!
These were all over Chicago area from 83-87, since Kenosha is now considered a ‘suburb’. After they were killed off, BHPH lots had them as ‘get a newer used car for less!’, and were all over low income areas, until they died off in the 90s.
Also, many were in the left lane blocking traffic flow, and I called them ‘dweeb-machines’. Very 80’s slang, btw.
It’s a shame that other than turbodiesels, Renault really didn’t make many good engines until the high-strung 16valvers in the Clio Williams and other limited edition hot hatches came out. These days, the small displacement 1.4 and 1.2 turbos are also well regarded.
But back when the Alliance was around, forget it. The 2 liter in that GTA makes something like 96 horsepower, with fuel injection. Compare to what VW or Honda offered around the same time and it’s easy to see why the car was so unsuccessful. They were slow in an era when there was no excuse. It was a car designed with unending Malaise in mind.
It’s a shame, too, because they had typical French brilliance in terms of ride/handling and interior comfort.
Looking just at the horsepower rating might make you think that, but that doesn’t reconcile with the reality. There isn’t one Toyota MR2, VW GTI, Firebird 5.0, or Honda anything that I didn’t see in my rearview mirror in my GTA when I was young and foolish and used to race people that wanted it. The torque from this engine was quite high, the car weighed less than 2000 lbs., and I personally don’t think the HP rating was accurate anyhow. This car was all about extreme handling, however, so the quickness didn’t get mentioned too much.
As for reliability, you can find quite a few people with 200K on their cars and I’ve had 2 of them with over 140K on each. So I severely doubt that a report of a worn out engine at 50K in Europe applies to a 2.0L version that was only made in the North American market and was rock solid reliable unless you didn’t do basic maintenance (change the timing belt).
Maintenance… The bane of any vehicle. This holds true for just about any vehicle and is what is the most neglected point, which is why so many cars die an early death.
While reading this well-written article, I kept wondering why these Kenosha-built cars were branded “Renault” and not “AMC”. After all they were sold in AMC dealers, and whatever AMC’s reputation was at the time, Americans’ idea of “Ren-awlt” started at silly (“Le Car”) and went down from there (Dauphine).
So I read up a little (on the “Alliance” anyway) and found that:
a) AMC had a record profit in ’79, but Jeep sales crashed in the oil crunch and they had little else still worth selling, so cash flow crunched. By ’80 they just flat couldn’t raise any more money in the US. If Renault aka the French govt. hadn’t bought into AMC it would have closed. As that autoworker in the AMC cap above was putting a Renault badge on their Kenosha car, he was thinking, “At least they’re still paying me.”
b) Brand confusion persisted anyway, even in the product itself: “The car was initially badged as a Renault, and some cars carried both Renault and AMC badges, however most 1986 and all 1987 models had only AMC branding.”
In other words, Franco-American spaghetti. Oh well.
They did a customer survey and Renault rated just above AMC so they went with that.
Ahhh of course, MBAs always trust their focus groups. Sad that at least with some people AMC had sunk so low.
Who knew that someday AMC would be a trendy hot brand again, thanks to great TV like “Mad Men”.
The general rule for any failing auto brand is to last long enough for your brand to become cool and desirable again, which happens when the generation of owners with the most problems is either dead or nostalgic. AMC failed on that count. Chrysler didn’t.
The GTA, at the very least, had only Renault badging, not AMC. I wouldn’t even bother to mention that trivial detail except that it brings back a funny memory — the first owner of my white GTA had debadged it entirely, no doubt in hopes that it would pass for a BMW 3-series. At the time (mid 90s) I was able to order replacement GTA decals for the sides plus the red badges for the front and rear from a local Chrysler/Jeep dealer, thus for better or worse restoring the car to its full Renaultness 🙂
Even more confusing, the same GTA sold in Canada was badged Renault and did not have AMC anywhere on it or on the title
Someone around my town has one of these that is identical to the black one in the pictures, except that it has stock wheels. I read an article on the net (probably here) and I saw it in the opposite lane and realized what it was immediately.
The wheels on the black on above are the stock ones for the GTA.
I find it somewhat ironic that today Renault seems to be sucessfully running Nissan, but it completely failed at running AMC. AMC was bought out by Chrysler, now Chrysler is being run by Fiat. The more things change the more they stay the same.
It was hardly that simple. Renault in my opinion saved AMC and indirectly, saved Chrysler. When Renault came along, AMC was essentially bankrupt, Jeeps and other SUVs weren’t selling and they had no cash to update their car line, which were ’60s era technology. As everyone knows, Renault brought them some econoboxes to sell, but they also shared fuel injection technology that doubled the mileage of their midsized cars and let them get close to 40mpg, allowing them to soldier on for almost another decade.
What gets overlooked is that Renault revamped the Cherokee which really was the vehicle that started the whole SUV craze in my opinion. They also redesigned the factory in Brampton? which was one of the most modern in the world at the time. So just when Jeep was poised to take off, sales of small cars are lagging, Renault is having issues in Europe and the Chairman of Renault gets himself assassinated, so management decides to consolidate in Europe and sell off AMC.
Chrysler in the meantime, had just about exhausted what they could do with the K-car platform and aside from the Magic Wagon, things weren’t too positive. They get Jeep, just when sales take off. They get the factory, which makes them competitive in manufacturing and they get the Renault design staff who I believe played a major role in converting the R25 platform of the Premier into the cab forward, aerodynamic design cars that were the bread and butter of Chrysler for the next 15 years.
So I would say that Renault did a good job of running AMC, they just didn’t stick it out to see the fruits of their work.
Agreed.
It’s more complicated than that, IMHO. Renault made its “alliance” with AMC looking for dealers for its car line. AMC, meantime, was looking for technology; specifically a small car to build under license. Twenty years earlier the positions were reversed, with Renault building Rambler Classics under license, so a link-up with Renault seemed a good idea.
And Renault was in good financial shape – and AMC needed money and a line of credit.
What was missing in this equation, was that the dominant car company, government-owned as it was (which explains its dominant position in France) had basically LOUSY PRODUCT. Whatever cars are purchased for in the Continent, they aren’t, or weren’t, bought to be relied upon. They didn’t hold up, which was good as the average Frenchman had other ways of getting around. Railways, mostly.
But, against all odds, Renault learned a lot out of that deal. For one, they learned not to be dismissive of another company’s technology – just because it’s the object of their affections in whatever corporate-rape is planned. Nissan found itself on the rocks, as did AMC – but Nissan was still a large outfit, and technologically their product was more then competent. What they lacked was innovation – both product and marketing; the problem seemed to be institutional as the very structure of Nissan punished innovation.
Renault saw that. And doubtless they remembered how they succeeded with the Jeep XJ Cherokee – their idea; their capital, AMC’s off-the-shelf parts. The best of both worlds, what?
Renault seems now to replicate that. They’re learning from Nissan, how to build quality, durable automobiles…while teaching Nissan how to dream and how to fly. It really is a perfect link-up, if it continues to work…the creative mind of the Frenchman; and the technical product of three generations of Japanese techno-wonks.
The icing on the cake…was Renault’s very-wise decision NOT to market cars under their own name in the States this time. They’re using Nissan’s known reputation for quality…using it wisely, as they should.
Compare this magnificent pair-up to Daimler’s grisly rape of Chrysler…throwing the corpse out to be picked over by waves of bottom-feeder scavengers. That benefited NO ONE…except Chrysler shareholders at the time of the “merger.” Even Jurgen Schrempp lost face and his job out of that one.
I agree with a lot of your posting, but disagree with a lot more. In no particular order
– don’t buy that Renaults are unreliable. Mine were among the more reliable cars I’ve owned and all the horror stories I’ve heard are because mechanics didn’t know how to fix them (and they are simple, durable designs) and because the Alliance in particular sold at a bargain basement price, the people buying them didn’t do basic maintenance that turned a 200K plus capable car into a dead engine at 50-100K.
– you are embellishing Nissan quality prior to Renault. Try and find a pre-Renault Nissan here in Canada that doesn’t have rust permeating it. Nissan still had a good reputation, the lingering afterglow of the 240Z, so when Renault improved styling, body, engines, etc. that allowed sales to take off.
– you say Renaults aren’t reliable and were bought only because they were cheap, that the French didn’t buy them anyway and that they had other ways of getting around, but they sold over 5 million R5 and the R9 (Alliance) was one of the most popular in Europe. It was car of the year there and here, so how bad was it really?
– the tech transfer was almost entirely a download from Renault to AMC, not sure of any real learning the other way. The AMC cars and engines were outdated but Renault electronic ignition allowed them to double their gas mileage and soldier on for another 20 years. They tried to accommodate NA tastes by using 4WD platforms that Europe really didn’t need with success (Cherokee) and failure (Premier).
– you can’t describe Renault’s pulling out of NA as abject failure without pointing out that they were under severe pressure in their home market from Peugeot and others and their Chairman was assassinated, causing huge uncertainty. To me they overreacted to concerns in Europe and didn’t give their obvious successes in NA a chance to flourish. Chrysler inherited all of that for a song and it helped them right up until the Mercedes debacle.
– you also can’t mention Nissan resurgence and give Renault no credit without considering Carlos Ghosn. The acknowledged best car man in the world and he somehow had nothing to do with this? And every other company has tried to hire him away?
Renault has had their failures but I give them more credit in every circumstance than you seem to do.
There was a near mint condition red convertible for sale for $950 on Craigslist in the Seattle area a few weeks back. I would have scooped it up if I had the money. I’ve been wanting one of these cars for a long time now, though I’d rather have a GTA, I’d settle for a standard coupe or convertible.
There was also a Fuego on Craigslist at the same time, but alas, it’s also gone now and it looked to be in great condition as well.
As for the LeCar… I owned one in the late 80’s myself. It was silver and in great condition. Ran like a champ. I had no problems with it and I was a bit of a brute with the little car and it took the abuse with no qualms. I would not however recommend trying to make out or beyond with your girlfriend in one of these cars! Though it did force us to try new positions that we’d have never thought of trying in the bedroom… 😉
Here’s a down-on-his-luck George C. Scott in an Alliance GTA commercial:
One of these is for sale locally, I thought it was a neat little car and now I know much more about it. Enough to know I don’t want it for what he’s asking anyway.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/bnc/cto/3232001028.html
I currently own a red 1987 Renault GTA Convertible. The car looks like it just drove off the dealer parking lot and has 26,000 miles (yes…26k miles). I always get compliments when I take the car out for a spin. The only problem I had was trying to find a driver side window regulator. It was impossible to find so I had to repair the one that was broken.
Still driving Alliance every day as they were a great car at the time (in the 1980;s) Today they are dated, but the gas mileage is still very good, and as long as they can be kept rust free, expect 200,000 on a single original motor, being 1.4 or 1.7 Change timing belt AND Idlers and you are good to go. Jioe Wagner in Cincinnati ohio PS.. Linda is in the convertible…
I had an ’87 GTA for a few years in the late ’80’s and it was a great car. I got it at an auction where is it was alleged to have had bad wheel bearings and commanded a lower price. I knew from looking at it that it did not have bad wheel bearings but had original Michelin XGT tires whose tread blocks wear unevenly and make the car sound like it has bad wheel bearings. The car handled superbly and was really nicely equipped and instrumented. All the factory aero kit parts were made by Zender of Germany and the wheels were from Ronal. The only shortcoming was the monovalve fuel injection with unequal length intake runners. This resulted in slightly uneven acceleration characteristics which could have been cheaply averted and might have been had Renault stuck it out.
Some years ago I was able to get the ’86 Renault GTA which as noted above shares nothing but the name in common. Adding a good ’87 GTA back to my collection would be a pleasure.
I bought a new 1987 GTA when I moved to the Chicago area in 86. This was a FUN car to drive. It continued to be a fun car to drive (except in snow, where it was the worst I’ve ever driven) right up until I gave it away in 2006.
The fun of driving it was offset by the many problems with the car.
The original tires were Michelin XGT 195/50 15’s which were good for about 15k if you drove carefully. They were also responsible for a lot of wheel replacements because the sidewalls were so low profile, every time you hit a pot hole or crossed railroad tracks, a wheel or two got bent resulting in a terrible vibration. Eventually Michelin discontinued the tire and the search was on for replacements. The first, Falken, were completely bald in 8k miles. BFG TA Radials had good traction, lasted longer and the rounder sidewalls eliminated the bent rim problem. However those same rounder sidewalls also rubbed not only the rear inner fender wells but also the shock absorbers. The reduced clearance also collected mud and stones on the inside of the rear wheels, sometimes lodging the stones between the tire and suspension arm, gouging the tire. In the end, Pirelli P-zero tires proved the best.
The engine had good power and torque, but the car wasn’t really beefy enough to handle it. Broken front motor mounts were a regular event. Once the mount broke, hitting bumps in the road while in 2nd or 4th gear would pop you into neutral. Once, we tried welding the front mount solid, resulting in a noisier ride (think race car). but would also lead to the fracture of the mount support bracket.
While on the engine subject, the heat shield on the exhaust manifold cracked and rattled. I went through four manifold replacements before I gave up and turned the radio up. The manual suggested the timing belt be replaced at 80k. I had that done at 50k, again at 100k. The belt broke at 120k while running at 3000rpm and lunched the engine.
Front wheel bearings and CV joints required regular replacement as well. The high beam clicker breaks all the time, finally just put a toggle switch on the dash board. Mechanics seemed to always jack up the front of the car on the transaxle, causing the fracture of the housing that holds the gearshift mechanism. Eventually the collection of parts that fit into that housing fall out, leaving you with only 3rd, 4th and 5th gears.
Finally, I drove it across town and parked it in a field next to a garage where I stored my 69 Lotus Europa and put an ad on the Renault Owners Club bulletin board offering it free to a good home. So, my 20 years with this car ended watching it being trailered off to somewhere in New Jersey where it was to be restored. The new owner said he’d send pictures when it was done. That was six years ago.
I had the pleasure and suprise of trading for a 1987 GTA in Get a ticket red n 1993. It only had 42,000. It would run like a bat out of Hell. I grew up with my first car a 72 Vette, then a 73 Z-28..Now, It was not a V8 growler but, it introduced me to a small car that would hang a corner, run 100 MPH for 30 miles on I-75 and get 35 MPH..One night I was following my wife home, she was driving her new 94 Jeep. I was eating up the curvy road behind her and BAM..Timing belt broke, Goodby.Id did not know i was a required maint issue. I sold it for 500 dollars to a guy who had a motor.
It was like a high powered go-cart, loved it
Bought a GTA new in ’87. Absolutely loved the way it handled on dry pavement. On curves, it seemed like I could give almost anybody a run and beat them. Drove it a lot, and at about 75,000 miles it really started to wear out. Everything was going, and it became obvious that my choice was to maintain a project forever or to get rid of it, and as much as I liked driving it–I choose to get rid of it. Back in ’72, I had also chosen to get rid of my ’66 Mustang GT, for similar reasons. Those two I remember, and wonder if I should have done differently….
I had bought a new corporate demo in 1987, traded in a 82 Ford EXP for my GTA, and I just loved the GTA – ran it about 250K miles in 6 years before I got rid of it – wished I could find a nice one again. It could keep up on the bumpers of the Cavalier Z-24’s with 6 cylinders and you could run a hill in 5th gear at 35 miles per hour and pick up speed without hardly hitting the gas, not to mention I got 34 miles per gallon. It was a power rocket for sure.
I own an ’87 GTA in Silver. I’ve owned it for over 5 years. Bought it off of ebay from a guy in Providence,RI. Just love the car! It handles really well, gets great mileage and is a sleeper at car shows. People who know about the car are impressed to see one.
I haven’t had many problems with the car, other than routine maintenance, an electric window winder or two.Considering the car’s age there has been nothing out of the ordinary about the upkeep. Parts are getting harder to find but there is a network out there for them.
There were 8 GTAs at the Import/Kit Car show at Carlisle this year. Truly astonishing. Two came from Ohio, one from St. Louis, one from Tennessee, another from Rochester, NY and mine from NJ. What a fun gathering it was! The Renault Owners Club of North America is a great resource for these cars. I would encourage anyone who is interested in them to visit the following site: http://www.renaultclub.us/ for more information
While i have not owned a GTA, i have owned several Alliance/Encores since being an entry level mechanic at a dealership that had no one else interested in working on these foreign cars, they sent me to training classes, and they where my specialty for a time.
Nearly every one that i saw die an early death was for lack of maintenence, they where considered by most to be a disposable car i guess.
Fast forward 20 some years, and here i am, about to show you an Alliance convertible i own. The red metallic one has been freshly restored, it is the wife’s, i have a black one, its next.
I wouldn’t have spent 2 1/2 yrs doing this if it was the awful car most people think it is, and i fully expect to get 10 yrs of driving pleasure out of them, with good gas mileage as a bonus!
I own a GTA, purchased off a gentleman who’d driven it until the timing belt gave way.
It’s still an ongoing project (from 2008…) but that’s interestingly my engine in the article. Rebuilt in the bedroom of our old place, much to the chagrin of the wife. 7 bent valves, one broken off, a holed piston where the head of the broken valve sliced through the crown like it was butter. I can see why so many people drove these until they broken, then left them to rot or discarded them. Build quality is questionable, choice of plastics terrible and decision to include an interference engine with a belt drive for the US market? Foolish.
Other than the generally worn-out nature of the mechanical components, the body has survived remarkably well for 25+ years in SE Louisiana. No structural rust, the paint has all burned off in the sun but that’s expected. The little bit it’s been driven up and down the driveway hints at a lot of fun ahead though. Working slowly on deciphering the fuel injection computer too.
Overall, a fun little car to own.
I have a restored 1987 GTA for sale if anyone is interested, its a red convertible. call Larry at 716-487-1922
Can you post a picture?
I tried but would not work if you have an email I can send to that ,not very good on computers
rayscouts@gmail.com
Really interesting article this…. I’ve always been a fan of Renaults here in Europe…. I always loved the american built GTA…. As I’m sure you all know the Alliance/GTA/Encore were all based on the European Renault 9 & 11 range…. We have just purchased what would be the equivalent European version of the GTA…. It is a 1987 Phase 2 Renault 9 Turbo…. The engine is not the same as the GTA but rather shares a 1.4 Turbo charged unit with the European 5 GT Turbo & 11 Turbo… there are only 2 of these cars left on UK roads and we were fortunate enough to find this one…. It is good for 120 mph and 0-62 in 8.5 seconds… Like the experience of many GTA owners here the ride quality & handling are excellent and with such unique character the car can be forgiven for it’s less than perfect plastics …. In short, we love it and I’m sure those select few owners today of the GTA feel the same…. I hope you enjoy the pics of the 9 Turbo….
Another pic
Love the look of the European version. I tried to buy the parts over here in NA to convert the front end of mine to this. A guy in Quebec had them but was missing a signal lens and backed out of the deal claiming he wanted to find it first. Too bad, I’m sure I could have found it on the internet and the car looks much more sporty with the smaller Euro spec bumpers.
All the GTAs in North America were two door versions and had the 2.0 L non-turbo version for North American tastes at the time. Other than that, they are quite similar.
I have an 1987 Renault GTA Black Convertible to me its a collectable that they made for one year. Its also been in the family for years since i was 5 and is missing one piece that none of us can find. Now its mine and i want to be the one to complete it. i need a steering sector for it but cant even get a picture of what it looks like i got a jest of it was wondering if anybody on her can help me out in any way by sending me in the right direction to find one.
Try this?
The restoration of our Renault 9 Turbo is an ongoing rolling restoration but here is another more recent snap.
Refurbished rear sporting a non original tailfin spoiler reminiscent of that on the Renault 21 Turbo (AMC Renault Medallion)
Picture 3. I hope you all enjoy….
My 1987. Renault GTA. Red and black convertible. Very. Nice. Clean 2.0-/
5speed. /2door. Thank you, if anyone is interested please email me. ….Frankie
Here is the pics to of my Renault for SALE ! SEND E-MAIL
thanx Frankie
Trying for a pic…
Well, yes…on level ground things went slowly, and up even the mildest grade you were looking at 0 to 60 probably sometime late next month.
Back when these were a thing, I was working at a quickie lube. For whatever reason, year over year and between the 3 engines, oil filter threads seemed to be constantly in flux between SAE & metric.
The filter lookup book had huge asterisks and bold print, loudly emphasizing that the tech must double- and triple-check oil filter fitment on any Encore or Alliance.
I bet a lot of shops bought new engines for folks after screwing up the filter selection or bunging up the threads by forcing the wrong filter on.
Eventually, the major oil company that owned the chain I was working for put out a bulletin requiring all shops to refuse service to any owner of such a car.
Nothing to add to comments by myself and others, except to say that reading this article again made me sad. I really miss my two GTAs, and seriously wonder if anyone ever made a better-handling FWD car ….
After reading all the positive reviews in 1983. I bought a brand-new Renault Alliance. It soon developed a rather annoying habit:
Alliance runs fine. Park it. Hop back in. Crank the engine. Refuses to start. Call tow truck. Tow it to dealer. Stays at dealership over night. Dealer mechanic hops in. Starts right up. Impossible to diagnose the cause. I pay tow truck driver.
This cycle happened a half dozen times. Three AMC/Renault dealers could not find the problem. Last time: My wife and I went to a fine restaurant for our anniversary. After dining, we tried to start the Renault. It cranked but would not start. We ended walking five miles to my parents’ house to borrow their Buick.
That was the last straw. We traded in the Alliance. It had only 9,000 miles on the odometer. Twelve months of misery. Don’t tell me it was bad maintenance!
Renault used to make periodic assaults on the American market. In the late 50’s the Dauphine outsold the Beetle . . . very briefly, and then the cars began falling apart in owners hands. I dimly recall a tale in which they were used as official cars for some winter olympics and large pieces of car, door handles, and such, broke off and they were all dumped into a lake?
The oddest thing is that Renault never seemed to learn from their mistakes. VW became successful by introducing a high quality car that was markedly different from anything else sold and an extensive, high quality, well trained dealer network. (Current owners may disagree.) Renault and Peugeot generally had gas station dealers who might occasionally get a car in.
The AMC merger was the best orchestrated assault on the American market. Renault would get a large distribution network, and AMC would get product that someone might want to buy.
Unfortunately, AMC’s dealer network was indifferent or terrible, to a large extent. AMC dealers were used to working on AMC products, which were made out of the same technology as compressed dirt, and had nothing in common with the newfangled Renaults which might as well have come from outer space in terms of technology.
I have heard the maintenance argument before but there were plenty of bottom feeder cars sold in ’83-84 that chugged on and on into the early ’90’s. Tercels, Corollas, Chevettes, Sentras, Escorts, Omnirizons, etc, etc, were all in the same bottom feeder market and survived whether maintained or not. Renaults broke early, often, expensively, and dealers really didn’t know how to fix them very well. Additionally, they were engineered for stellar fuel economy, but slow, so by the mid ’80’s Americans had turned away from econoboxes and were interested in power again.
That being said, they were much more nicely trimmed than the spartan Japanese econoboxes of the period and roomy and comfortable for what they were. They generally eschewed the walls of cheap vinyl available in the worst of the Japanese cars for more pleasant fabrics. They were attractive cars, but the quality wasn’t there.
A buddy of mine bought a new Encore in 86 or so. He drove the hell out of it and I thought it was OK to drive and almost up to the standards of the Datsun’s and Toyota’s I was used to driving. Plus it was cheap, cheap, cheap and got good mileage.
Alliance rag top arrived for 1985 model year. Encore arrived in 1984.
I rem. seeing several Alliance models back in the day with Motor Trend Car of the Year white vinyl lettering on the lower rear window. My guess is that it was dealer installed ?
Always thought the body style was as nice or better than other small cars at that time .
Rented an Alliance at Newark airport in the fall of 1984, pick it up Saturday afternoon returned it Sunday night. The only memorable part of the experience was driving with the “pedal to the metal” on the way to the airport and not going very fast. Not entirely because of traffic but the car would just about keep up with traffic. It had to be the most forgettable car I’ve ever driven.
Back in 1998 I bought a red GTA coupe out of the local junkyard which had been T-boned on the driver’s door pillar. $150 bought the car, and a few minutes’ effort with a chain puller fixed the door not closing. I drove it happily for the next year. It was easily the best handling FWD car I’ve owned, and I have owned many. If a car has a cult following, there will always be aftermarket solutions to most if not all of its original weak points.
“… plenty of bottom feeder cars sold in ’83-84 that chugged on and on into the early ’90’s.”
“Renaults broke early, often,”
Yep. Even in AMC loyal Chicago/SE WI, Alliances were nearly extinct by 1993. Were a hit at first, just like Pacer, and were a “hope to save AMC”.
Renault would have been better off building new plant in WI first, and keeping Concorde around a but for profit, before any new car build.
I bought a 1985 Encore GS-with the 1.7 liter engine and the 5 speed it ran fairly well and had excellent handling; the problem I encountered was it suffered from a lot of problems-shortly after taking delivery one the radiator hoses started leaking (fixed by dealer) then the muffler rusted out, I had problems with the front disc brakes squealing and if you hit a curb accidentally it usually knocked the front wheels out of alignment; one night while driving it and trying to keep it in a straight line I got pulled over by a cop who thought I was DUI.
The dealer I bought it from had a hard time making effective repairs; the pressure plate started giving me problems; the dealer never could fix it properly, after repairs I could not get the vehicle to shift into 5th gear.
I finally gave up on the dealer and started taking it to an independent shop for repairs, After about four years I traded it in, after that I never wanted another French car.
Of all history’s auto failures, one of the saddest has to be the Renault Alliance, specifically, the 1985-86 convertible (before the final, dual headlight version for 1987). To me, it had a bargain-basement Maserati Biturbo look to it. Unfortunately, it had about the same level of quality and reliability as the Mazer.
I really wanted to like the car, and would have bought one if it weren’t for the double whammy of poor reputation, combined with a rising price. The only thing worse than a cheap POS car is an expensive one.
At least the Renault 9 assembled both in Colombia and Argentina were such successful and reliable cars. They used to be one of the best buys of the ’90s . Reliable, durable , easy to repair , impressive MPG, excellent acceleration for their tiny 1.4 and 1.6 liter’s engines . It’s hard to digest the Kenosha’s built Renault Alliance were not so good cars as mostly owners quote. With the exception of Brazil ( where Renault still wasn’t available in the domestic market the whole 1990s ) you can still see today down the rough roads of South America plenty of these beloved Renault 9 Alliance commuting everywhere and keeping good efficient little machines. Not to mention, in design , was one of the prettiest cars for its time. Not to mention ( excerpt for Brazil ) the Renault 9 proved to be more popular than Volkswagen’s concurrents. Infact especially the 1.4 liter is a Renault engine than can last twenty years without major issues . Little Renault 9 Alliance better machine than even Renault 18 and Renault 19 altogether